It's not so much a term as the last phrase. The very end of the 5th amendment is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
There was no compensation fixed in the Constitution, because the Constitution did not emancipate slaves or abolish slavery. In fact, this was one of the main sticking points on the very adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution would never have been adopted by the slaveholding states even if compensation had been put in the Constitution. Slaves were still considered "property" and if this property were to be taken away from slaveholders some kind of compensation had to be given to them. Even many abolitionists agreed that this was so. The Constitution deferred the abolition question for twenty years by prohibiting any law or even Amendment to the Constitution until 1808. The compensation question came up then only then the issue was even more troublesome. This is because abolitionists now had to deal with slaveholders' property rights under the Fifth Amendment, which guaranteed that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and that private property could not be taken for public use without just compensation. Due process alone would have required at the very least just compensation.
In the United States Constitution, eminent domain is discussed in the fifth amendment. "No person shall be deprived of... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
No, the government cannot seize private property without providing just compensation under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The common good or public interest alone cannot justify taking someone's home without compensation in most circumstances. However, there are instances where the government can exercise its power of eminent domain and take property for public use, but compensation must still be provided.
The power of the government to enact eminent domain and take private property from citizens is derived from the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution which states: "No person shall be deprived of... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". The 5th amendment doe not actually establish eminent domain as a government power. The 5th amendment sets limits to eminent domain.
The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides the " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
not without rightful compensation, as said in the constitution
It is unconstitutional to take any property without "just compensation" therefore taking of wetland property is in violation of the constitution. Wetland property can not be "taken" but it is protected. Wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act and the Farm Bill. As a result, the government puts restrictions on what you can and can not do to a wetland.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for due process of law rights of the accused and protects private property. It states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
"just compensation" (5th Amendment)
Intellectual property is in the Constitution itself, in Article I, section 8, clause 8.
self-incrimination Witnessing against ourselves in a court trail it gives us a grand jury for our trail and it states that our property can not be taken for public use without compensation
It's the 5th amendment to the US Constitution. It's called Eminent Domain.